FILE

Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla’s application for Ombudsman has become a litmus test not just of his personal qualifications, but of the integrity of the country’s appointment process.

The issue at hand is no longer simply about one man’s bid, it is about whether nuisance complaints and procedural gamesmanship can be allowed to dictate who gets to lead one of the most critical accountability institutions in government.

In the past few days, a series of cases has been filed or revived against Remulla. Senator Imee Marcos lodged the first complaint in March 2025, related to the turnover of former President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court (ICC). That case was dismissed on September 12. Yet, only hours before her office officially received the dismissal, a motion for reconsideration was already filed, suggesting a pre-drafted strategy designed to keep the case alive regardless of the merits.

Then, on September 15, two more complaints surfaced. Davao City Mayor Sebastian Duterte filed a case that mirrored the Marcos complaint, merely rebranding it with a kidnapping angle.

On the same day, lawyer Ferdinand Topacio raised a case tied to the 2024 arrest of Alice Guo and Cassandra Ong in Indonesia, a full year after the incident took place.

The timing was hardly accidental: both complaints were lodged at the precise moment Remulla’s Ombudsman clearance was being processed, ensuring obstacles to his qualification.

The Politics of Timing

There is a clear pattern here. When cases emerge not at the time of the alleged offense but precisely when a candidate is seeking clearance for higher office, it raises serious doubts about intent.

The facts themselves appear secondary. What matters more is the timing, calculated to stall a candidate’s progress and taint public perception just as decisions are being made. This is not justice. It is orchestration.

The Threat to Due Process

Allowing such maneuvers to shape the Ombudsman race creates a dangerous precedent. The law requires Ombudsman clearance to ensure candidates have no pending cases, but this safeguard can be twisted into a weapon.

If timing alone can generate “pending cases,” then any reform-minded applicant can be effectively blocked by filing recycled or frivolous complaints at just the right moment. This transforms a procedural check into a political chokehold.

The courts and the Ombudsman have long frowned upon forum shopping and harassment suits for precisely this reason: they clog the system, harass respondents, and erode faith in the justice process.
But the recent spate of cases against Remulla takes it one step further, turning the clearance requirement itself into a tool of obstruction.

What’s at Stake for Governance

The greater danger here is systemic. If the Ombudsman and the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) allow these tactics to succeed, the message is unmistakable: truth matters less than timing.

That would not only undermine the credibility of the Ombudsman’s office but also discourage capable leaders from stepping forward, knowing their candidacies can be derailed not by evidence, but by paperwork filed at politically convenient moments.

In the end, the complaints are not simply about Boying Remulla. They are about whether we allow timing tricks and nuisance cases to dictate who gets to lead one of the country’s most powerful accountability institutions.

If the Ombudsman and the JBC let these maneuvers derail a qualified applicant, the precedent is clear: any reformist, any independent voice, any threat to entrenched power can be stopped not by merit, but by nuisance cases.

That is the real danger. It’s not Remulla who stands to lose the most, it’s the credibility of our institutions and the people’s trust in justice.